Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) challenged certain regulations adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) requiring engine manufacturers to obtain a sample of emissions of in-use heavy-duty engines equipped with on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems that are nearing the end of their certified useful life and conduct a series of tests on these engines “to assure that engines certified for sale in California are equipped with OBD systems that properly function . . . .” The regulations at issue contained provisions requiring CARB to order the recall and repair of all engines that have been determined to be equipped with a non-conforming OBD system where certain conditions exist. EMA sought a judicial declaration that the challenged regulations were in excess of CARB’s statutory authority and therefore invalid. The trial court granted EMA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and declared the challenged regulations invalid. CARB appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed: the Legislature granted CARB broad authority to adopt regulations designed to reduce air pollution caused by motor vehicle emissions as expeditiously as possible, subject to cost-effectiveness and feasibility limitations. The challenged regulations fall within the scope of authority conferred by the Legislature unless manufacturer in-use testing of OBD systems on heavy-duty engines was prohibitively costly. The question of prohibitive cost could not be settled on the pleadings. The remaining question, whether the regulations were reasonably necessary to effectuate the statutory purpose, was not properly raised in EMA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court remanded remand the matter to the trial court with directions to deny EMA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.View "Engine Manufacturers Assn. v. CA Air Resources Bd." on Justia Law

Anthony Aulisio, Jr., appealed a jury verdict that found defendants, consisting of his homeowner association's management company (Optimum Professional Property Management and Debra Kovach), the patrol service it employed (BLB Enterprises, Inc., dba Patrol One, and Bill Bancroft), and a towing company (PD Transport, dba Southside Towing, and John Vach), did not wrongfully tow and convert his Jeep vehicle, nor convert the personal property it contained. CAAJ Leasing Trust (CAAJ), which Aulisio created as sole grantor, trustee, and trust beneficiary, owned legal title to the Jeep and also appeals. CAAJ appeals the trial court's ruling at the outset of trial that CAAJ "can't participate in the proceedings" with Aulisio appearing in propria persona as the trust's sole trustee and sole beneficiary. The trial court relied on precedent that an executor or personal representative may not appear in propria persona in court proceedings outside the probate context on behalf of a decedent's estate because representing another person or entity's interest in a lawsuit constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. But if a sole trustee is also the trust's sole settlor and beneficiary, the rationale of these cases ceases to apply: no interests are at stake except those of one person. Upon review, the Court of Appeal concluded that a sole trustee of a revocable living trust who is also the sole settlor and beneficiary of the trust assets he or she is charged to protect does not appear in court proceedings concerning the trust in a representative capacity. Instead, he or she properly acts in propria persona and does not violate the bar against practicing law without a license. The judgment as to CAAJ was reversed, and the case remanded so Aulisio may appear in propria persona to assert his interest as the sole beneficial owner of the Jeep as a trust asset. The Court affirmed the judgment against Aulisio in his individual capacity concerning his personal property in the Jeep.View "Aulisio v. Bancroft" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Guthy for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17529.5, alleging, among other things, that Guthy sent them unsolicited commercial email advertisements purporting to be from "Proactive Special Offer," "Wen Hair Care," "Proactive Special Bonus Deal," "Wen Healthy Hair," "Wen by Chaz Dean," "Proactive Bonus Deal," "Proactive Bonus Gift," and "Proactive: Special Offer," which are not names or registered fictitious business names of existing entities, and are not traceable to Guthy via a WHOIS database. The court held that a header line in a commercial email advertisement does not misrepresent the identity of the sender merely because it does not identify the official name of the entity which sent the email, or merely because it does not identify the official name of the entity which sent the email, or merely because it does not identify an entity whose domain name is traceable from an online database, provided the sender's identity is readily ascertainable from the body of the email, as was the case here; the body of the emails made clear that free shipping or free gifts were contingent upon a purchase; a reasonable sender would not have reason to believe that commercial missives like these were "likely to deceive a recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the message." Accordingly, the court concluded no cause of action was stated for violation of section 17529.5, subdivision (a)(2) or (a)(3) and affirmed the judgment of dismissal.View "Rosolowski v. Guthy-Renker" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a shareholder derivative action on behalf of Deckers to recover damages he claimed it suffered because of misconduct by Deckers' officers and directors. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer with leave to amend but plaintiff elected not to file an amended complaint. The trial court subsequently dismissed the complaint and plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that discovery is not available to a person seeking to qualify as a plaintiff in a shareholder derivative action involving a Delaware corporation. Plaintiff must comply with the particularized pleading requirement of Rule 23.1 without the assistance of Deckers, its officers, or board of directors. Plaintiff, instead, should consult and use the "tools at hand," such as an inspection demand or taking the steps necessary to obtain the facts from publicly available SEC filings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal.View "Jones v. Martinez (Deckers Outdoor Corp.)" on Justia Law

This case was one of a number of cases which have, in the aftermath of the "Great Recession" that hit Riverside and San Bernadino counties particarly hard. This appeal stemmed from the construction of a Kohl’s department store in Beaumont. The developer of the store was Inland-LCG Beaumont, LLC, and the general contractor was 361 Group Construction Services, Inc. Somewhere in the process of construction, the money dried up and 361 refused to pay its subcontractors for work they had done. Those subcontractors included Cass Construction, TNT Grading Inc., Palomar Grading & Paving and R3 Contractors. These four subcontractors recorded mechanic’s liens and sued to foreclose those liens. With one exception they obtained judgments of foreclosure. The one exception was TNT, who, by the time of the trial to foreclose its mechanic’s lien, was a suspended corporation and thus unable to prosecute an action. The two owners of the property, Kohl’s and Wells Fargo, appealed the judgments obtained by the three successful subcontractors, Cass, R3 and Palomar Grading. The Court of Appeal took a "soup-to-nuts" approach in reviewing the multiple issues presented on appeal, and affirmed in all respects except to the degree that liens of Palomar Grading and Cass should include prejudgment interest. To that degree the Court reversed the judgment and remanded it with instructions to the trial court to recalculate the prejudgment interest at 7 percent. On balance, Cass and R3 were still the prevailing parties in this appeal: Of 10 issues raised, they prevailed, either singly or together, in 9. They recovered their costs on appeal from Kohl’s and Wells Fargo. For Palomar Grading, the only issue on which it has appeared in this appeal was the issue of the proper rate of prejudgment interest, and on that issue it lost. "However, it would be unfair to allow Kohl’s and Wells Fargo to recover all their appellate costs from Palomar Grading because they won on the lone prejudgment interest rate issue. Most of this appeal has concerned their unsuccessful challenges to the foreclosure judgments obtained by Cass and R3."View "Palomar Grading v. Wells Fargo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff CB Richard Ellis, Inc. (CBRE), pursuant to a 2004 listing agreement, sought a commission after the 2005 sale of 38 acres of land in Murrieta. Arbitration proceedings between CBRE and the seller, Jefferson 38, LLC resulted in a confirmed arbitral award in CBRE’s favor, but no monetary satisfaction for CBRE because Jefferson had no assets by the time of the arbitral award and judgment. The issue this case presented to the Court of Appeal centered on CBRE’s attempt to recover damages from Jefferson’s individual members. A jury trial resulted in a $354,000 judgment in favor of CBRE. Both defendants and CBRE appealed the judgment, citing alleged errors pertaining to jury instructions, the admissibility of evidence, juror misconduct, attorney fees, and prejudgment interest. Upon review, the Court of Appeal rejected the parties’ contentions, except with regard to CBRE’s entitlement to attorney fees.View "CB Richard Ellis v. Terra Nostra Consultants" on Justia Law

Defendants / cross-complainants Intervest-Mortgage Investment Company and Sterling Savings Bank (together Intervest) appealed a judgment in favor of plaintiff / cross-defendant Moorefield Construction, Inc. The parties' dispute stemmed from an uncompleted medical office building development in San Jacinto. Moorefield was the general contractor for the development, and Intervest was the construction lender. The developer, DBN Parkside, LLC, encountered financial difficulties toward the end of the project. As a result, DBN did not fully pay Moorefield for its construction services and defaulted on its construction loan from Intervest. Moorefield filed a mechanic's lien against the development property, and Intervest took title to the property in a trustee's sale under the construction loan. Moorefield's sought to foreclose on its mechanic's lien. Intervest's cross-complaint against Moorefield sought a declaration of the relative priority of the lien, equitable subrogation to a priority position over the lien, quiet title, and judicial foreclosure. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Moorefield on the complaint and cross-complaint, declared Moorefield's mechanic's lien was superior in priority to Intervest's construction loan deed of trust, and ordered foreclosure and sale of the property to satisfy Moorefield's mechanic's lien. Intervest appealed, arguing: (1) the court erred in finding Moorefield's agreement to subordinate its mechanic's lien to the construction loan deed of trust was unenforceable; (2) the court should have applied the doctrine of equitable subrogation to give Intervest partial priority over Moorefield's mechanic's lien; (3) substantial evidence does not support the court's finding that Moorefield commenced work prior to the recording of Intervest's deed of trust; and (4) substantial evidence does not support the court's finding that Moorefield's mechanic's lien was timely filed following completion of construction. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded Moorefield's agreement to subordinate its mechanic's lien to the construction loan deed of trust was enforceable and therefore reversed the trial court's judgment. View "Moorefield Constr. v. Intervest-Mortgage" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Court of Appeal's review centered on whether federal law preempted the effort by a district attorney to recover civil penalties under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) based on an employer’s alleged violation of workplace safety standards. Petitioners Solus Industrial Innovations, Emerson Power Transmission Corp., and Emerson Electric Co. (collectively Solus) argued the trial court erred by overruling their demurrer to two causes of action filed against them by Respondent, the Orange County District Attorney, alleging a right to recover such penalties. Solus argued that federal workplace safety law (Fed/OSHA) preempted any state law workplace safety enforcement mechanism which has not been specifically incorporated into the state workplace safety plan approved by the U.S. Secretary of Labor. The district attorney argued that once a state workplace safety plan has been approved by the Secretary of Labor, the state retains significant discretion to determine how it will enforce the safety standards incorporated therein, and thus the state may empower prosecutors to enforce those standards through whatever legal mechanism is available when such a case is referred to them. The trial court agreed with the district attorney and overruled Solus’s demurrer. But the court also certified this issue as presenting a controlling issue of law suitable for early appellate review under Code of Civil Procedure section 166.1. Solus then filed a petition for writ of mandate asking the Court of Appeal to review the trial court’s ruling. After the Court summarily denied the petition, the California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal with directions to issue an order to show cause. In the course of its opinion, the Court of Appeal noted that the UCL was not even in effect when California’s plan was approved. The California Supreme Court then granted review, and transferred the matter back to the Court of Appeal with directions to reconsider the matter in light of former Civil Code section 3370.1 repealed by stats. 1977, ch. 299, sec. 3, p. 1204. Having done so, the Court of Appeal again concluded that the district attorney’s reliance on the UCL to address workplace safety violations was preempted. View "Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Defendants DISH Network LLC, AT&T Corporation, and EchoStar Satellite LLC appealed a judgment and two postjudgment orders in favor of plaintiffs Manuel and Deborah Holguin following a jury trial on the Holguins' complaint for breach of contract, negligence, and other torts. DISH, AT&T, and EchoStar argued that the trial court erred by denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial and by granting contractual attorney fees to the Holguins. The Holguins cross-appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion in making an award of attorney fees that allegedly did not fully compensate the Holguins' attorneys. The Holguins ordered a bundle consisting of telephone, Internet, and satellite television services. A DISH technician arrived at the Holguins' home to install the satellite dish and related equipment. The installation did not go as planned. The DISH technician drilled through a sewer pipe in the wall, fed a satellite television cable through it, and patched the wall without repairing the pipe. The Holguins did not discover the improper installation until 14 months later. In the intervening time, the damaged pipe leaked sewer water into the surrounding wall cavity and caused mold buildup in the Holguins' home. As a result, the Holguins suffered respiratory problems and other health issues. A DISH representative told the Holguins that DISH would reimburse them if they did not want to live in their house pending repair work, but the Holguins never received reimbursement. The Holguins retained an attorney and an industrial hygienist, who told the Holguins that there was still extensive mold growth even after remediation work. In particular, there was evidence of mold growth in other areas of the Holguins' home, in addition to the area immediately surrounding the damaged pipe. The Holguins asked DISH to complete the remediation and repair, but DISH did not do any additional work. The Holguins eventually hired their own contractor, who performed the remediation and repair at the Holguins' expense. DISH California admitted that the Holguins' satellite television equipment was negligently installed, but it denied that it was responsible for damages beyond the cost of repairing the pipe and certain incidentals. Aside from DISH California's admission of negligence, the defendants denied all of the Holguins' claims. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of defendants' posttrial motions, and the trial court's order awarding attorney fees. View "Holguin v. Dish Network LLC" on Justia Law

Jade Fashion filed suit against Harkham, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, goods sold and delivered, open book account, account stated, and breach of guaranty. Jade Fashion claimed that Harkham breached the parties' written agreement by failing to comply with the payment terms set forth in the agreement, including refusing to pay the remaining principal balance for goods it purchased from Jade Fashion. Harkham counterclaimed for fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment. On appeal, Harkham challenged the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Jade Fashion. Because Jade Fashion filed a respondent's appendix that included all the improperly omitted documents at issue, the court reviewed the trial court's summary judgment on the merits. The court concluded that the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the breach of contract claims; even assuming that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the common count claims, Harkham cannot show prejudice because Jade Fashion was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the breach of contract claims and no additional damages were awarded on the common count claims; the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the request for a continuance because Harkham failed to show how facts essential to its opposition could be obtained by deposing Jade Fashion's attorney; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.View "Jade Fashion v. Harkham Industries" on Justia Law